Unlocking I.33 - The Tactics in Medieval Sword and Buckler - Belgian Buckler Symposium 2020

[@johng1097]

I think this may be the best HEMA video I’ve ever seen !!!

[@FedericoMalagutti]

Thank you!!!

[@benatmitxelena1672]

We want more!!! This is a fantastic aproruch to the source. Great job.

[@SchildwachePotsdam]

Hi Federico, thank you for this seminar - it’s a great video! I will nag at several points, because that’s what this Symposium is about, so keep in mind how much I appreciate your work! ;D I pretty much agree on your short introduction. I would add, that we probably see that much binding, because it’s a safe thing to train. Not only for the one executing the technique, but for the receiver as well. When we started to train i.33 back in the past, when we had no masks etc. we used to train thrusts etc. we would do so deliberately beside the face as well. If done on the side of the oppenent’s sword, this would proof that even a parrying motion would only displace the blade into the face. :D Using false edge cuts instead of thrusts is another great simulator as well, which is still my hypothesis for the direct attack from half-shield vs. first ward. I also agree, that the exact position of the first ward does not matter too much. As long as the right is below the left, it’s Prima Custodia pretty much. There is an old video from Dave Rawlings, where he explains this a bit more in detail. As for attacks from Prima, I would also channel my inner Dave that all strikes from Prima are in principle possible, especially the right Oberhau - where some interpretations derive the *falling* under from. In a functional way I don’t think there is a lot of difference to your interpretation though. ☺ The right unterhau as a direct response to the falling under: I don’t like it, but it’s certainly possible and agrees with the depiction. The counter is well executed, I just miss the striking part that “stichslac” seems to be indicated. I like the thrust in right ochs or a right sturzhau more, as it would secure Elisa’s upper right, forcing a due tempi action: A false edge parry, which could be called a thrust and a riposte, the strike. Your blade action during the shieldstrike already looks almost like what I do and there should be little functional difference. It’s also why I like this action (thrusting / false edge strike from the right) so much: I only have to adapt very little, depending on what the opponent is doing. So the basic plan (and the position of my hands) is always the same. Okay, before I write too much to discuss about, I will stop for now. Just let me say again how much I appreciate the work you (and Elisa) put in this video. Thank you very much!

[@FedericoMalagutti]

In regards of the false edge/thrust from halpshilt, yes I am of your same idea. In fact it was the first bit of interpretation that brought me to this “new” one. About prima. I know David works, which I like and I agree that with some adjustments a oberhau can be launched easily (there is a old video of mine on my channel, 2016/17 I think, in which I show how todo it) but now I think is not relevant tactically speaking, too much time to train the form without real benefits. The stichslach part as a counter to the “common” strike is explained in the very first “plays” folio. 2 recto. Stichslach and thrust in right ochs/schiltslach are counter to two different actions: Stichslach is vs the “common blow”, the common blow is an action that the overbinder (schiltslach) can throw instead of doing religat et calcat. Schiltslach (and the binding thrust which brings to it) is the religat and calcat, executed in place of the common blow under the advice of the priest, so the two actions doesn’t come from the same part. In the video I explain where you can find the “common blow” action depicted in the manual.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

I understanded only now that you meant “the striking part of the word stich-slach” is missing! Sorry. Well the answer is: I don’t thing stichslach is a specific weird motion. Is most probably just a way to indicate a thrust, or maybe a thrust that gets to the opponent in a non-linear way (so not a sesta - langort kind of thing). In terms of a right sturtzhau, I think it doesn’t fit the only image we have even if it could make sense tactically speaking. Besides this, I basically am in line with you.

[@porta_di_ferro]

Your best sword & buckler video!!! Exteremely logical and exhaustive explanations. Every movement is clear, well explained and logically justified. I appreciate and trying myself to use such aproaches. Thank you very much!

[@FedericoMalagutti]

You are welcome. Thank you for the nice comment:-)

[@incongruouscat4646]

Another fine offering, Federico. Much thanks for these explanations.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

You are welcome!

[@toddgreener]

That description of the the little couplet that shows up everywhere in the manual was perfect! Personally I've never been able to really make much sense of it. I love everything in this video.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

Thank you very much!

[@jasonjames9836]

Very thoughtful video. I’ve just started my study of I.33 and I enjoyed your perspective.

[@ndeep45]

Thank you for bringing us this opportunity to check in our skills

[@bahhesaid]

Great video (which I only found today), interesting and well argued and presented! I do not agree with everything, but there are certainly things I will bring with me to my own understanding of I33. Thank you for this!

[@FedericoMalagutti]

You are welcome!

[@toddgreener]

Just watched this again: I want another video showing all the things!

[@wilowhisp]

Wow! Really detailed and superb video on I.33. Lots to think about, I can't wait to discuss and work on these ideas with my training partners. Thanks so much for the hard work you put into this.

[@jimmynicolas4602]

Encore une belle vidéo. ...😀

[@cmbaileytstc]

Marc Denny of the Dog Brothers talks about how there are drills of the Filipino martial arts that are probably done that way to keep men with daily jobs or a war to fight skills sharp *without* getting fingers broken. And if you train them without otherwise knowing how to fight they do you no good BUT, with the experience of having fought they work well to develop attributes.

[@narusawa74]

Awesome Maestro! Thanks I crave working and learning proper use of this knowledge. Static drill are great to get the mechanics but the whole strategy and how to bring your opponents to make the mistake to exploit it.....I can do it a bit easier with rapier. So this video is god sent !!

[@TyLarson]

Fantastic video Federico. I am no expert on sword and buckler but I like how you integrated second intent and the general pov to take tower fechtbuch as a training manual using the equipment of the time.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

Thank you Ty!!!

[@CapitanCarter]

Thanks Federico, a very good video! I really enjoyed it. I'd like to see some videos dealing with cuts from second ward!

[@AndersAnvil]

Appreciate how well this is presented! Do you have any videos with a sheath? More specifically drills for drawing your sword and buckler under duress?

[@FedericoMalagutti]

No, but maybe in the future...

[@josesanchez-zf5sz]

i´m just starting with the i.33 and this has been a huuuge help THANKS!! and happy new year from spain

[@FedericoMalagutti]

Thank you! You are welcome!

[@437cosimo]

Very enjoyable!

[@FedericoMalagutti]

Thank you!

[@freedomforall1712]

I absolutely love this! It is hard to find sword and shield or sword and buckler.

[@gregoryrogalsky6937]

Very good.

[@kevingibbard4457]

Totally agree with the idea that it is a training manual. A lot of HEMA material must have been designed to be safe enough to practice (often without a lot of protection). For this same reason, modern foil does not target the head (masks were not safe enough in the past), thrusts were taken out of single stick etc...

[@matthewclaridge8063]

Granted i've never done HEMA before (unfortunately) but I'm quite a good left handed sabreur (if i don't say so myself 😉) as i've fenced since I was a child. I can imagine having access to a buckler offering quite a few advantages. For example, parrying with a buckler would allow you to Riposte from an unorthodox/unexpected line of attack. Plus considering how common simultaneous or near simultaneous touches are in fencing (and I'm guessing swordplay in general). Access to any type of armour that gives you the ability to "to"take/tank" a hit (for want of better words) could make all the difference in a real life situation...

[@PetrKavan]

Hypothesis: What if obsesseos are in fact not static at all? Imagine following: - Every cut starts in one of custodia. Every cut ends in langort (explicitly said) - Every obsseseo is a middle point of some cut. As if you run the animation of a cut and stop it in the middle. So sequence "seconda custodia - halpschilt - langort" is one tempo cut equal to mandritto fendente. "tertia custodia - schutzen - langort" is roverso fendente. "prima custodia - crucke - langort" is roverso sotano, etc. Implicit I.33 rule "always enter contact distance with an obsesseo" would then in fact mean mean well known "start cut earlier than step, so that when you enter distance, you are already halfway in the cut". "Falling under" would then be in-tempo action against mandritto fendente. Opponent cuts fendente, I lunge ("fall") to the side and cut his hands by descending cut (another "fall"). "Sub" (in phrase "cade sub" ) would need to be translated as "behind", not "under". Which is not exactly correct in latin, but makes more sense to me - you are trying to get your sword behind opponents sword and shield. It also better matches the image in I.33 - it looks as if priest has cut the hands, and scholar has caught the cut with sword just above the crossguard.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

I will address this in a video in the future! Thanks for sharing your interpretation!

[@PetrKavan]

@@FedericoMalagutti I am trying to pin down the basics before I get to plays. And the more I look into it, the more convinced I am that obssessiones ARE cuts (sometimes thrusts, but usually cuts). Halpschilt equals to fendente, krucke to sotano etc. ... there are more possibilities than with longsword, depending on what left hand with buckler does. Being "besieged by halpschilt" would then mean "when opponent cuts fendente at you". Almost all obssessiones look like a cut that is half way done. I have modified my understanding of langort being the ultimate ending position. In this video, you are explaining "falling under" as a second intention attack. I am not sure about it, but - aren't all obsessiones just first parts of second intention attacks? First you enter with a cut (obsessio) to an opening, expecting it will be parried by opponent's shield. Then you do followup action circumventing the shield and hitting the opponent in langort-like position. So the assault ends in langort, as explicitly stated. This could be the core attacking strategy of I.33, and also reason why everything ends in langort. This is supported by several plays where opponent "omits the bind" etc. (eg. folio 5r and following). In my interpretation, this means that opponent just parries with the shield (the most natural thing to do from all custodiae) and does nothing more. The second action after the attacker sees that defender "omits his actions" always include some sort of sword twist. Left to right, true edge to false edge etc. In my oppinion this is done to go around the shield that parried the first action, and this is the final part of a second intention assault.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

@ I think you are definitely into something interesting but there are still a number of things which I have to think about more in depth. For instance with schutzen your idea would be 100% true, but with krucke for instance it’s kind of “meh” in terms of application and relation to the way it explains. To me for now obsessio are a “tool” (I would add certain attacks at this point) meant to cover a line and -if possible- threaten a target. For instance the one against tertiary has been for years now a high right thrust. Anyway. You are into something for sure in my humble opinion

[@PetrKavan]

@@FedericoMalagutti I agree that there is still some gray middle ground, where things are not so clear. I would be very glad to see your take on this idea, because it seems plausible to me, it explains a lot, but I also don't have your HEMA experience and I might have missed something. As for krucke being "meh" ... I can see it as a roverso sotano aimed at opponent's elbow. It is kind of risky (right hand very far and very high), but then, it is said to be a rare siege, that only priest does! :-) It might be just suprising way of attack. And you are advised to quickly turn it into a stich, just in case. In folio 12r you can find another type of roverso sotano, which is similar to krucke, but with sword hand above the shield hand. Maybe this was a more common way to cut sotano, but it has to start in tertia custodia. Krucke might be an uncommon surprising way to cut sotano even from prima custodia, where sword is below shield hand, and common fencer does not expect it.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

@ I’ll get over the subject, I have a huge list of topics to treat but i’lm manage to stick this one in the middle

[@MartinGreywolf]

I think that, when it comes to training weapons, we must not forget the LARP swords of the past. We have pretty solid evidence, complete with a how to make one description, if the fancy whalebone or wood core ones that were stuffed with wool inside leather cover. I'm pretty sure these were used for as long as swords were a thing, unless you wanted to go sparring in armor with blunts. I don't think that has any bearing on I.33 specifically, but it bears keeping in mind. Second thing to note is that, while mixing terminologies can offer some insight, it has to be done carefully. We could talk about I.33 in Fiore's terms (where second intention actions are third or fourth master, depending on if you are attacker or defender), or Lichtenauers' (second intention is... Krieg, I suppose, but only sometimes), or any other, but if we do that we may be introducing artifacts that come from those terminologies. If the goal is to come up with a fencing style that works, it's no problem, if it is to reconstruct a manual as accurately as possible, there may be issues. Finally, I think it bears mentioning that I.33 would have been almost unique, if not entirely unique, to the people writing it. There was no tradition of writing fencing manuals, and no one figured out how to do them properly quite yet, so they did the simple thing: called the guy who ran the lessons, told him to run them and pose for the illuminations and wrote that down. That's why we see training thrusts - the artist drew what he saw, and not always accurately at that. This uniqueness then explains why I.33 is as... janky as it is, and not very well structured. The above is more of a chicken or the egg question - they didn't create a manual of teaching excercises on purpose, they wanted to make a fighting manual and didn't quite have the necessary know-how. This has pretty much zero impact on any interpretation, though, and is only interesting as an academic theory.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

Uhm! Personally I don't think using a terminology which basically resumes a tactic is in any way a problem. Instead of saying "A block of Iron on top of a Stick" I say Hammer, that's just for the sake of explaining things in a shorter time. Anyway, I linked in the video description an explanation of the modern tactical concept of second intention. Krieg can sometimes be a second intention in "old terms" in which action one is first intention, action two is second intention etc. etc. In modern terms is more like: "I hide a second intention" which means, I do something (a feinted attack, a movement) meant to stimulate the offensive reaction of the opponent, which them I'm going to counter. So is basically a 3 actions chess trap, I start by offering an interesting opportunity to hurt me, to let the opponent take it, but it was under control from the beginning so having alreadyprepared the plan I can counter the offensive action and land my own real attack. The larps weapons instead are an interesting thing I never considered, I'll think about that. In terms of: Fighting Book or Training Book. Well, it changed radically my way of reading the manual so I suppose it can be, at least, relevant to me in relation to my experience.

[@andreweden9405]

Omg, I can't wait to watch this video! I have been saving it.😁 Federico, this is a crazy question, but you're also kind of my Italian connection, and your knowledge helps me cut through some of the possible BS we hear over here in the States! Was the Pope truly arrested recently??

[@andreweden9405]

Also, Federico, from where did you order your buckler/s?

[@FedericoMalagutti]

Hi Andrew! No, the Pope was not arrested, it was a fake news already spread out in 03/2020 and used again now;-) I did the buckler myself, except for the doomed one. Contact “Mastro Girolamo” on Facebook. He builds leather reenact or stuff, bucklers, scabbards and shields of high quality!

[@andreweden9405]

@@FedericoMalagutti , Thank you so much for the reply! I am sorry to even honor such a question by even asking it, but I needed to hear it confirmed by you.😁 Also, thank you for the tip on the craftsman Maestro Girolamo, I am definitely going to check out his work.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

@@andreweden9405 don’t worry, you are welcome

[@glenbrooks2269]

great video , what is best wooden or metal buckler ?

[@FedericoMalagutti]

I prefer wooden personally

[@sergireig]

I haven’t found any other Lignitzer play. Did you post them?

[@FedericoMalagutti]

@@sergireig unluckily I didn’t found the time to dedicate myself to that project. But I promise I would deliver it at some point.

[@sergireig]

@@FedericoMalagutti No worries, I just wanted to know. Great video!

[@junichiroyamashita]

Hi,i have seen you follow Maestro Tomaselli Never considered showing the Talhoffer 1477 messer system? I heard it is considered the easiest to learn for a beginner.

[@narusawa74]

Messer is perfect system to learn longsword too. The fencing school Ochs have epic video tutorials for the Messer. Buy them online they are still available. Hans the headmaster is also a beast of precision so its a very good DVD to have if you can't find a teacher locally

[@FedericoMalagutti]

I follow Tomaselli mainly because he is funny to be honest, sadly his skills with swords are not as good as his skills with words, from what I have seen so far. But I may be wrong. Anyway yes, Talhoffer Messer is one of the easiest systems ever, as David Rawlings states. This system is part of the repertoire I used to build up my arming sword system. You can find the Playlist in the video description.

[@Druid_Ignacy]

Federico, may I have a question? So You basically say, that correct tactics against falling under relies on foreseeing that enemy will use falling under / provoking enemy with obsessio to use it - and then perform compound riposte / compound counter, as we have initiative, even though enemy believes he or she has it? Did I sumed up it right?

[@FedericoMalagutti]

Yes exactly. Ideally this action is performed as a plan preventively studied. But more realistically is more a composition of planned actions and conditioned solutions as the fight already started. There is also more to say about the falling under, as it (in my opinion) was mainly a safe training tool to represent different things. But long story short: Yeah, yo summed it up quite rightly. I would just change the word “provoking” with an obsessio in “closing the line” as the main idea is feeling on which side the opponent will flee through the blade, to better cover the proper line (but to be honest, every obsessio can be adapted to deal with various attacks in times of necessity).

[@Druid_Ignacy]

@@FedericoMalagutti I meant to provoke desired strike with halpshilt :) Thank you, that really makes sense :)

[@FedericoMalagutti]

@@Druid_Ignacy oh! In this case, perfect!

[@Naki728]

Strangely enough, I watched the whole video despite I prefer Bolognese Sword and Buckler over I.33 lolll. Anyway, great vdo still

[@JohnGilbert-l5l]

Very interesting.